Coronavirus

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

@ghostrunner I think we talked about how pandemics end a year or so ago in this thread. And, at the time I think the conclusion, or mine at least, was that pandemics 'end' socially before they fully reach endemic status.

Vaccines protect against severe illness and death. Everyone has had their opportunity to get jabbed. The virus will always circulate. To me it comes down to how long are we going to trade away aspects of normal life for marginal risk reduction, the biggest proportion of gains going to the unvaccinated?

Sweden is 82% vaxxed, ~10M people. Averaging 5 deaths per day. US is 62% vaxxed, ~335M people. Averaging 1300 deaths per day. Using loose math and saying 90% of all deaths are unvaxxed, that's, well, 0.5 vaxxed deaths/day in Sweden and 130/day in the US. In the US, that rate is lower than the flu guesstimation deaths of 60K annually (many of which are unvaxxed, granted, so we're apples to oranges, but you get the point). It's also roughly the same, maybe 20% more, deaths annually than vehicular accidents cause. And, that's using a death/day rate for covid that is in the middle of the most infectious variant to date in the middle of the winter when these viruses spread most rapidly.

Point being, to act as if it's absurd to talk about the pandemic like it's effectively over or even offensive then I'd be curious what metrics you'd use. Still, I don't agree with his statement it's effectively over. As a citizen of one of the states he talks about, my kid's school is still doing virtual learning. The hospitals are mobilizing to meet a coming surge. Lines to get tested are long. Etc.

Regarding the efficacy of masks, it does seem to make sense that stopping spray at the source provides a benefit. A cloth mask does that just as well as a perfectly fitting n95 or respirator. I don't think its hurting anyone to wear them. But, as someone pointed out, it's dangerous to trust them.

Not sure what's gross about pointing out that not everyone can work from home. The point is exactly that. Lockdowns don't mean lockdowns for everyone, only a portion of the population. Does that limit spread? In theory, sure. Does it stop spread? No. What's the cost of a lockdown? What's the benefit of letting X% of the population work from home? What's the cost of remote learning? What's the benefit of keeping kids out of the classroom? Weigh the cost/benefit and he comes to the conclusion they're not worth it.

In the end, the single biggest thing you can do to mitigate risk immediately, or close to immediately, is get vaxxed. Doing so puts your risk limits, even assuming infection, well within parameters of what we have generally accepted with zero worries as a society without any other mitigating efforts.

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

I'm fairly certain that COVID transmission is primarily aerosol, making virtually any mask useless. I know you may ask "but what about hospitals? Don't masks work there for all kinds of dieseases?" Well yes, but they also have ventilation systems that are >>>>> than your local grocery store or corporate office building.

Did we ever talk about UV lighting in air handlers?

[MrCrowesGarden]

@ghostrunner I think we talked about how pandemics end a year or so ago in this thread. And, at the time I think the conclusion, or mine at least, was that pandemics 'end' socially before they fully reach endemic status.

Vaccines protect against severe illness and death. Everyone has had their opportunity to get jabbed. The virus will always circulate. To me it comes down to how long are we going to trade away aspects of normal life for marginal risk reduction, the biggest proportion of gains going to the unvaccinated?

Sweden is 82% vaxxed, ~10M people. Averaging 5 deaths per day. US is 62% vaxxed, ~335M people. Averaging 1300 deaths per day. Using loose math and saying 90% of all deaths are unvaxxed, that's, well, 0.5 vaxxed deaths/day in Sweden and 130/day in the US. In the US, that rate is lower than the flu guesstimation deaths of 60K annually (many of which are unvaxxed, granted, so we're apples to oranges, but you get the point). It's also roughly the same, maybe 20% more, deaths annually than vehicular accidents cause. And, that's using a death/day rate for covid that is in the middle of the most infectious variant to date in the middle of the winter when these viruses spread most rapidly.

Point being, to act as if it's absurd to talk about the pandemic like it's effectively over or even offensive then I'd be curious what metrics you'd use. Still, I don't agree with his statement it's effectively over. As a citizen of one of the states he talks about, my kid's school is still doing virtual learning. The hospitals are mobilizing to meet a coming surge. Lines to get tested are long. Etc.

Regarding the efficacy of masks, it does seem to make sense that stopping spray at the source provides a benefit. A cloth mask does that just as well as a perfectly fitting n95 or respirator. I don't think its hurting anyone to wear them. But, as someone pointed out, it's dangerous to trust them.

Not sure what's gross about pointing out that not everyone can work from home. The point is exactly that. Lockdowns don't mean lockdowns for everyone, only a portion of the population. Does that limit spread? In theory, sure. Does it stop spread? No. What's the cost of a lockdown? What's the benefit of letting X% of the population work from home? What's the cost of remote learning? What's the benefit of keeping kids out of the classroom? Weigh the cost/benefit and he comes to the conclusion they're not worth it.

In the end, the single biggest thing you can do to mitigate risk immediately, or close to immediately, is get vaxxed. Doing so puts your risk limits, even assuming infection, well within parameters of what we have generally accepted with zero worries as a society without any other mitigating efforts.

I do think that's the grossest part about this and goes back to the biggest blunder being the government prioritized the economy over people.

I also get that remote learning sucks, but in general the options in a pandemic suck. I think we basically have four options with school, and none are good (although some are less bad than others):

-we voluntarily close school buildings for a while
-we involuntarily close them at some point
-we send kids and teachers to school sick, keeping in mind how many children under 12 aren't vaccinated yet
-we make keeping schools open and sending kids to them the number one priority, which means an actual lockdown in other regards

[ghostrunner]

Re: masks, this is what isn't answered to my satisfaction:

Yes, Covid is transmitted through aerosolized particles. But the aerosol doesn't just occur straight out of the mouth or nose, right? Or does it, and to what extent? I'm sure some escapes the mouth in small particles but a lot of it gets out in bigger droplets which presumably dissipate. If you sneeze, you've got a variety of particles coming out. A visible stream in the center and bunch of smaller particles you can't even see coming out as well. The further you shoot those out and the fewer that are obstructed, the more particles will exist in the air. If this is oversimplifying, I'd like to see it proven. But it seems logical.


So in a busy neighborhood grocery, lets' say 1000 people go in a day. 100 have covid. What's the difference in accumulated aerosolized particles present in the air if none of those people are masked vs 50% of them or 100%. Or cloth vs semi-leaky N95s. How different is the saturation? Practically, you can say it doesn't matter if people won't do it or won't wear the mask properly, or they wear cloth masks. But if we don't know the answer to what works the best then it's not possible to recommend a course of action that everyone can communicate and follow. If it's not possible to know this, then we're left with what seems best to us. And with N95s you can actually protect yourself somewhat, and that's important if you've got vulnerable people in your life.

I'd really like an answer to how much covid goes in or out around the edges of masks. Out of curiosity as much as anything, because this seems more or less important depending on what expert you listen to.

I find any anecdotal or regional example hard to credit because it seems impossible to know enough about general behavior. Absent any real firm guidance, everyone's doing something different.

[Popeye_Card]

I do think that's the grossest part about this and goes back to the biggest blunder being the government prioritized the economy over people.

I think you are underestimating the size of the "essential" economy. The portion that would still have to function in-person during even the strictest of lockdowns, unless we were all satisfied eating food from our pantries, not using any utilities, etc. for two weeks.

[ghostrunner]

Point being, to act as if it's absurd to talk about the pandemic like it's effectively over or even offensive then I'd be curious what metrics you'd use. Still, I don't agree with his statement it's effectively over. As a citizen of one of the states he talks about, my kid's school is still doing virtual learning. The hospitals are mobilizing to meet a coming surge. Lines to get tested are long. Etc.

I feel like this answers your question. The hospitalizations in particular are already straining the system, even where many people are vaxxed.

Regarding the efficacy of masks, it does seem to make sense that stopping spray at the source provides a benefit. A cloth mask does that just as well as a perfectly fitting n95 or respirator. I don't think its hurting anyone to wear them. But, as someone pointed out, it's dangerous to trust them.

Not sure what's gross about pointing out that not everyone can work from home. The point is exactly that. Lockdowns don't mean lockdowns for everyone, only a portion of the population. Does that limit spread? In theory, sure. Does it stop spread? No. What's the cost of a lockdown? What's the benefit of letting X% of the population work from home? What's the cost of remote learning? What's the benefit of keeping kids out of the classroom? Weigh the cost/benefit and he comes to the conclusion they're not worth it.

I don't trust masks to stop it, I just don't know what else can be done outside vaccination which doesn't appear to solve the problems we're currently having with Omicron. Well ventilation, but as I said that doesn't get discussed. I assume because of costs.

Re: work from home, I'm not talking about him specifically, but "laptop class" is one example of it. There's other examples of people writing about this like it's a class divide. "The people working from home just don't understand the people who work at the grocery and that they need school or daycare". I don't think that attitude is prevalent at all, or that anyone wants a total lockdown like China seems to have. As far as the benefit of having people work from home, I'm saying there's plenty of people for whom there's no benefit to working from the office, so if you can do it and you prefer it, then do it. There's also a lot of benefit to everyone not traveling across town to an office (and maybe a daycare or school) in the morning and then doing the reverse in the afternoon. When hospitalizations are high, maybe do it for a couple weeks even if you don't like it. I'm not for keeping kids home from school or remote learning if it can be avoided. These things aren't all equal.

To be clear, I'm not obsessive about any of this and don't spend a lot of time thinking or worrying about it. I just do what seems logical and hope it's the right thing. I'm sure that's true of most people. Everything I'm saying is just those accumulated thoughts laid out as well as I can manage.

[Popeye_Card]

Re: masks, this is what isn't answered to my satisfaction:

Yes, Covid is transmitted through aerosolized particles. But the aerosol doesn't just occur straight out of the mouth or nose, right? Or does it, and to what extent? I'm sure some escapes the mouth in small particles but a lot of it gets out in bigger droplets which presumably dissipate. If you sneeze, you've got a variety of particles coming out. A visible stream in the center and bunch of smaller particles you can't even see coming out as well. The further you shoot those out and the fewer that are obstructed, the more particles will exist in the air. If this is oversimplifying, I'd like to see it proven. But it seems logical.


So in a busy neighborhood grocery, lets' say 1000 people go in a day. 100 have covid. What's the difference in accumulated aerosolized particles present in the air if none of those people are masked vs 50% of them or 100%. Or cloth vs semi-leaky N95s. How different is the saturation? Practically, you can say it doesn't matter if people won't do it or won't wear the mask properly, or they wear cloth masks. But if we don't know the answer to what works the best then it's not possible to recommend a course of action that everyone can communicate and follow. If it's not possible to know this, then we're left with what seems best to us. And with N95s you can actually protect yourself somewhat, and that's important if you've got vulnerable people in your life.

I'd really like an answer to how much covid goes in or out around the edges of masks. Out of curiosity as much as anything, because this seems more or less important depending on what expert you listen to.

I find any anecdotal or regional example hard to credit because it seems impossible to know enough about general behavior. Absent any real firm guidance, everyone's doing something different.

My understanding is that the particles are small enough that we are talking about them being attached to the air flowing through the mask, and not around the edges. Unless it is being passed through a HEPA level filter, COVID is being spread around.

You can tape a surgical style mask around the edges, and you'll still be able to breathe fairly easily through the material. A N95 will be tough, but still forcing some air through. I wouldn't want to spend all day breathing through that, even if it was filtering well enough to block COVID from passing through.

[MrCrowesGarden]

I do think that's the grossest part about this and goes back to the biggest blunder being the government prioritized the economy over people.

I think you are underestimating the size of the "essential" economy. The portion that would still have to function in-person during even the strictest of lockdowns, unless we were all satisfied eating food from our pantries, not using any utilities, etc. for two weeks.

I don't think I am. The government could have done grocery delivery. Of course there are some jobs where it would have been necessary for people to be in person, but we could have done so much more for them.

Instead we have carve-outs arguing Bass Pro Shops is an essential business because they sell beef jerky at the counter (actually happened here.)

[mikechamp]

Instead we have carve-outs arguing Bass Pro Shops is an essential business because they sell beef jerky at the counter (actually happened here.)

I'll add that we had a pottery decorating place remain open when it was only supposed to be essential businesses open. I'm not sure how they qualified. Maybe they stayed open because no one enforced the lockdown, but that leads to the larger question of how serious did people initially take it.

[haltz]

I think I've been underestimating the potential collateral damage from the economic suffering and lockdowns. Unfortunately those things are pretty linked with human suffering. When the dust settles, if it ever does, there are estimates that indirect deaths from covid will exceed direct deaths from covid. It's a long list that includes starving children, undiagnosed cancer, drug overdose and domestic violence, depression and suicide, loss of control of other endemic viruses, you name it.